George W. Bush on Defense

Largest increase in defense $ in two decades: never too high

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports 3 great goals for America: We will win this war, we will protect our homeland, and we will revive our economy.

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month-over $30 million a day-and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives,
and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely.

Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment and the best training
and they also deserve another pay raise. My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.

Source: State of the Union speech to joint session of Congress
Jan 29, 2002

Listens to Europeans on SDI, but “intent on the right thing”

As he talked with NATO leaders today, Bush was careful in many ways to project an awareness of European concerns about a missile defense shield, and a willingness to address them. Referring to European worries that the US was poised to go it alone on
several issues of common concern, Bush said, “Unilateralists don’t come around the table to listen to others and to share opinion.” He said any new approach to security must “include greater nonproliferation and counterproliferation efforts.” He vowed
to “reach out to Russian leaders,” indicating his recognition of the importance that some European leaders attach to Russian consent before a missile system is built.

But at the same time, Bush seemed to be serving notice that he planned to do what he
wanted to do, and that his intention in talking to European allies was largely to bring them around to his point of view, not to alter his own. “I’m intent upon doing what I think is the right thing in order to make the world more peaceful,” he said.

Source: Frank Bruni, NY Times
Jun 14, 2001

Focus on mobility and swiftness, not size of military

We must extend our peace by advancing our technology. We are witnessing a revolution in the technology of war. Power is increasingly defined not by size, but by mobility and swiftness. Advantage increasingly comes from information, such as the
three-dimensional images of simulated battle that I have just seen. Safety is gained in stealth and forces projected on the long arc of precision-guided weapons.

The best way to keep the peace is to redefine war on our terms. We have begun a
comprehensive review of the US military, the state of our strategy, the structure of our forces, the priorities of our budget. I have given a broad mandate to challenge the status quo as we design a new architecture for the defense of America. We will
modernize some existing weapons and equipment, a task we have neglected for too long, but we will do this judiciously and selectively. Our goal is to move beyond marginal improvements to harness new technologies that will support a new strategy.

Comprehensive review of military: then new spending

We have begun a comprehensive review of the US military, the state of our strategy, the structure of our forces, the priorities of our budget.

We do not know yet the exact shape of our future military, but we know the direction we must begin to travel.
On land, our heavy forces will be lighter. Our light forces will be more lethal. All will be easier to deploy and to sustain. In the air, we’ll be able to strike across the world with pinpoint accuracy. On the oceans, we’ll connect information & weapons
in new ways, maximizing our ability to project power over land. In space, we’ll protect our network of satellites.

All of this will require great effort and new spending. My first budget makes only a start. Before we make our full investment,
we must know our exact priorities, and we will not know our priorities until the defense review is finished. That report will mark the beginning of a new defense agenda and a new strategic vision and will be the basis for allocating our defense resources

Bush’s stated military service record is incorrect

Five months after the Globe first reported discrepancies [in Bush’s military service record], Bush’s biography on his presidential campaign Web site remains unchanged, stating that he served as a pilot in the Texas Guard from 1968 to 1973.

In fact,
Bush only flew from June 1970 until April 1972. That month he ceased flying altogether, two years before his military commitment ended, an unusual step that has left some veteran fighter pilots puzzled.

A group of Vietnam veterans recently offered
a $3,500 reward for anyone who can verify Bush’s claim that he performed service at a Montgomery air guard unit in 1972, when Bush was temporarily in Alabama working on a political campaign. So far, no one has come forward.

A Bush campaign spokesman acknowledged last week that he knows of no witnesses who can attest to Bush’s attendance at drills after he returned to Houston in late 1972 and before his early release from the Guard in September 1973.

Source: Walter V. Robinson, Boston Globe, p. A14
Oct 31, 2000

AWOL in Air Guard? Maybe not, but didn’t meet obligations

There is strong evidence that Bush performed no military service, as was required, when he moved from Houston to Alabama to work on a US Senate campaign from May to November 1972. There are no records of any service and the commanding officer of the unit
Bush was assigned to said he never saw him. Bush was suspended from flight duty for not taking his annual flight physical.

The Bush campaign’s initial explanation for the lapse “incomplete records,” it now admits, was wrong. An Air Reserve official
said last week that they now believe that Bush met minimum drill requirements before his discharge.

The result is that Bush’s discharge was “honorable.” Other current and retired Air Force officers said Bush’s military records are much like those
of countless other Guardsmen at the time: guardsmen who lost interest in their units, and commanders who found it easier to muster them out than hold them to a commitment many made to avoid Vietnam.

Source: Walter V. Robinson, Boston Globe, p. A14
Oct 31, 2000

Military mission has become fuzzy

BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I’d come in second. I readily admit, I’m not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. [There was a question about] deployment. It must be in the national interests.
It must be in our vital interest whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we’re going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.
I’m concerned that we’re overdeployed around the world. You see, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be
to be prepared and ready to fight and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often.

Source: St. Louis debate
Oct 17, 2000

Opposed Somalia intervention when it became nation-building

Somalia started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for
what’s called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it’s in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise.

Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University
Oct 11, 2000

Be world’s peacemaker instead of world’s policeman

I want to rebuild our military to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to the US and world affairs. I don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman. I want to be the world’s
peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that’s well-equipped. I want to have antiballistic missile systems to protect ourselves and our allies from a rogue nation that may try to hold us hostage or blackmail a friend.

Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA
Oct 3, 2000

Rebuild military so it can fulfill mission to prevent war

I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening. And so I take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military. Morale in today’s military is low. We’re
having trouble meeting recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who
wear the uniform to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped; bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled
folks in the services; and a commander in chief who clearly sets the mission.

Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA
Oct 3, 2000

Redefine how war is fought and won

Bush said that the nation has the chance to “redefine how war is fought and won in the future, and therefore we have the opportunity to redefine how the peace is kept.” He pledged to assemble military leaders to come up with a “strategic plan” for what
the military of the future should look like. “We know it’s not going to look like the great American moment of Desert Storm and Desert Shield. A military of the future is not going to be that heavy, and it’s not going to be that hard to move.”

Source: Alison Mitchell, NY Times
Sep 7, 2000

Bush says military not ready; Pentagon disagrees

Despite Pentagon assurances that all of the U.S. Army’s divisions are “fit to fight and ready to deploy,” Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush refused Friday to concede that the U.S. military is combat-ready. “No, I would not concede that
necessarily. I’m amazed that they would put out a statement right after our convention” The U.S. Army said Friday that Bush was wrong when he said in his speech Thursday night to the Republican National Convention
that two of the Army’s 10 divisions were not ready to fight. Bush had said: “If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report
‘Not ready for duty, sir.’” But Maj. Thomas Collins, an Army spokesman, told CNN: “All 10 Army divisions are combat-ready, fully able to meet their war-fighting mission.”

Source: CNN.com
Aug 4, 2000

Post-Vietnam: just cause; clear goal; overwhelming victory

A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam. When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

I will work to reduce nuclear weapons and nuclear
tension in the world -- to turn these years of influence into decades of peace. And my administration will deploy missile defenses to guard against attack and blackmail. Now is the time, not to defend outdated treaties, but to defend the American people.

Source: Speech to Republican National Convention
Aug 3, 2000

Lowest possible number of nukes consistent with security

Bush proposed building a defensive system that would cover all 50 states and could be extended to protect allies in Europe, the Mideast & Asia. In addition to the possibility of large unilateral arms cuts, he said most American nuclear weapons should be
removed from hair-trigger alert status. Bush said he wanted to reduce the size of the US nuclear arsenal to the “lowest possible number consistent with our national security” and below the levels called for under the Start II accord with Russia.

Source: Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times
May 28, 2000

Post-Cold War: remove weapons & high-alert; build SDI

Two weeks before President Clinton travels to Moscow for a US-Russia summit, Bush called for unilateral reductions in America’s nuclear arsenal at the same time as the US moves ahead with a robust national missile-defense system.
Bush refused to say how many more weapons he would cut; nor did he say what the US could do to calm Russia’s fears of a new multibillion-dollar race to build anti-missile systems.

Bush accused Clinton and Gore of being “locked in a Cold War mentality.”
Bush said, “The premises of Cold War nuclear targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.” He also said the US should “remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status.”

Bush was hesitant to use the politically-charged word “unilateral” when calling for reductions, saying instead that the US should “lead by example,” and that he would “work closely with the Russians to convince them to do the same.”

Source: Carla Anne Robbins, Wall Street Journal, p. A4
May 24, 2000

Deter terrorists by counterstrikes & counterintelligence

Would deter terrorist attacks by ensuring that every group or nation understands that if they sponsor such attacks, the U.S. response will be devastating

Would strengthen our intelligence community’s ability to detect terrorist threats,
and develop long-range strike capabilities to eliminate such threats before they arise

Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’
Apr 2, 2000

Use arms to defend Europe, Far East, Mideast, & Panama

Q: When would you use arms? A: When it’s in our national strategic interests. Europe is in our national strategic interests. The Far East is in our national strategic interests. Our own hemisphere is in our national strategic interests. The
Middle East-protecting Israel is in our national strategic interests. If somebody tries to block passage through the Panama Canal, I would make sure it remains open for trade. It’s in our interests to have a hemisphere that is peaceful and open for trade

Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show
Feb 15, 2000

Top-down review to decide which programs to cancel

McCAIN [to Bush]: We don’t have unlimited funds. Is there any military programs that you would reduce spending on?

BUSH: What’s needed to happen is the top down review of the military so that there’s a strategic plan to make sure that we
spend properly. I’ll give you an example of the Crusader Howitzer program, looks like it’s too heavy. It’s not lethal enough. There’s going to be a lot of programs that aren’t going to fit into the strategic plan for a long-term change of our military.

Source: GOP Debate in Manchester NH
Jan 26, 2000

US military is key to preserving world peace

Outside of America’s borders the world is a freer and safer place [than when we grew up]. We must always remember the importance of a strong military, a strong United States of America, to preserve world peace.

Source: Powell Lecture Series, Texas A&M Univ.
Apr 6, 1998

George W. Bush on Military Personnel

Spend money on soldiers before sending them to hot spots

Q: What is the proper role for the military?

GORE: The US has to be strong in order to promote peace and stability. We need to make sure that our personnel are adequately paid and that their pay is comparable to the competition from the private sector.
I have supported the largest pay raise in many a year. I support another one now. I also support modernization of our tactical weaponry. I think one of the ways we’ve been able to be so successful in Kosovo and other places is by having the technological
edge. Now, readiness. I propose $100 billion for this purpose.

BUSH: We have an opportunity to use the great technology of the United States to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity to keep the peace. I’m going
to ask the secretary of defense to develop a plan so we’re making sure we’re not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed and have the best equipment in the world.

Source: (X-ref Gore) St. Louis debate
Oct 17, 2000

Gays in military OK; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” OK

Q: Do you support the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military?

A: I support the current ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy crafted by General Colin Powell regarding homosexuals in the military. We are blessed and
fortunate to have had so many men and women fight so valiantly for our liberties in America. I respect and admire anyone who has served in any branch of our military and put his or her life on the line for our freedom.

Source: Associated Press
Sep 6, 2000

Increase military pay to increase morale

Military readiness has been a consistent drumbeat of his campaign. The proposals Bush was releasing Monday include: Increasing military pay raises by $1 billion -- or about
$750 per active-duty service member. Bush also promises to boost targeted re-enlistment bonuses and the pay of specialists such as pilots, computer programmers and engineers.

Source: A.P. article in NY Times
Aug 21, 2000

Better equipment, better training, and better pay

The world needs America’s strength and leadership, and America’s armed forces need better equipment, better training, and better pay. We will give our military the means to
keep the peace, and we will give it one thing more: a commander-in-chief who respects our men and women in uniform, and a commander-in-chief who earns their respect.

Source: Speech to Republican National Convention
Aug 3, 2000

$1B more for salary; $20B more for R&D for new weapons

Saying we have “asked our servicemen and women to do too much with too little,” Bush today promoted his agenda for rebuilding America’s military by improving troop morale and investing in research and development. “Even the highest morale is eventually
undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, and rapidly declining readiness. I make this pledge to our men and women in arms: As President, I will preserve American power for American interests. And I will
treat American soldiers with the dignity and respect they have earned.“

Invest in research and development by at least $20 billion over the next five years, 20% [of which] must be spent for purchasing next generation weapons.

Source: Press Release, “Improving Troop Morale”
May 31, 2000

George W. Bush on Missile Defense

The defenses we build must protect us all: include allies

We must prepare our nations against the dangers of a new era. The grave threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has not gone away with the cold war, it has evolved into many separate threats, some of them harder to see and harder to answer,
and the adversaries seeking these tools of terror are less predictable, more diverse.

With advanced technology, we must confront the threats that come on a missile. With shared intelligence and enforcement, we must confront the threats that come in
a shipping container or in a suitcase. We have no higher priority than the defense of our people against terrorist attack. To succeed, America knows we must work with our allies. We did not prevail together in the
cold war only to go our separate ways, pursuing separate plans with separate technologies. The dangers ahead confront us all. The defenses we build must protect us all.

SDI: think beyond Cold War, but convince Europe & Russia

Q: With the failure of the missile-defense test, are you still convinced we should move quickly to build a defensive shield?

A: Yes, we need to move ahead. I hope I can convince Mr. Putin and the Europeans. I talked to [Russian Foreign Minister Igor]
Ivanov about it, and I talked to him point-blank. I said here we are still trying to get out of a cold war mind-set. Please tell Mr. Putin I am willing to think differently. [Ivanov] talked about the new threats of outlaw nations, those are his words.

Source: Interview with Time Magazine, CNN.com/Time.com
Aug 1, 2000

SDI plan like Bush Sr.’s $63B GPALS & “Brilliant Pebbles”

Bush proposed missile defense system appears to be nearly identical to the missile shield proposed by his father in his 1991 State of the Union address. The elder Bush’s proposal was for a system to defend against an accidental Russian launch or a small
volley of missiles fired by some other country. It became known at the Pentagon as GPALS, for “global protection against limited strikes.”

GPALS envisioned 750 ground-based interceptors deployed at six areas in the US, plus 1,000 space-based
interceptors using “brilliant pebbles” technology, which would fire thousands of pieces of metal at an incoming warhead, like buckshot in space.

By contrast, the Clinton administration’s proposal is for a system of 100 to 250 ground-based interceptors
with silos to be built in just one or two sites--Alaska and possibly North Dakota--at a cost estimated at $12.6 billion to $60 billion.A January 1992 General Accounting Office study of GPALS put its price tag in 1992 dollars at $63 billion.

Source: Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Page A1
Jun 4, 2000

Russia: jointly reduce missiles; but no joint SDI

Bush offered as a precedent [for “leading by example” in nuclear diarmament] his father’s 1991 decision to unilaterally pull back all US short-range nuclear weapons from Europe and Asia, a move that was quickly matched and raised by
then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

Notably, Bush shied away from another of his father’s 1991 proposals: that Russia join the US and its allies in building missile defenses, a move intended to overcome Moscow’s fierce objections to the program.
Bush said yesterday that his willingness to share technology would “depend on how Russia behaves.”

Bush’s proposal is still a significant break with many in his own party’s leadership, who argue that the US
can have missile defenses and maintain large numbers of nuclear weapons. It was a clear attempt to rebut recent charges by Clinton & Gore that Bush is trapped in Cold War thinking.

Source: Carla Anne Robbins, Wall Street Journal, p. A4
May 24, 2000

SDI needed for defense against rogue states & terrorists

There’s broad agreement that our nation needs a new approach to nuclear security that matches a new era. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the world has changed faster than US policy. The emerging security
threats to the United States, to its friends and allies, and even to Russia, now come from rogue states, terrorist groups and other adversaries seeking weapons of mass destruction. It is time to leave the Cold War behind.
America must build effective missile defenses based on the best available options at the earliest possible date. It is possible to build a missile defense and diffuse confrontation with Russia. America should do
both. I will never reduce the levels of the nuclear stockpile of the US to a position where we jeopardize our safety and security. And no, I don’t support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Source: National Press Club, part of “Renewing America’s Purpose”
May 23, 2000

Develop SDI, even if we must breach ABM treaty

Bush said it was important enough for the US to deploy anti-ballistic missiles that he would back out of a 1972 treaty with the Russians if they did not agree to amend its provisions so that the US could pursue this course.